Samit Gopal, J.

1. Heard Sri Gulab Chand, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vinod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant before this Court with the following prayers:

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the Criminal proceedings of Criminal case /Sessions Trial No. 1195 of 2021 (Charge sheet no. 3 of 2022 dated 24.10.2022) (arising out of case crime no. 532 of 2020 under Sections 420, 409, 120-B, 411, 34 I.P.C. & 9, 10 of U.P. Public Examination Act, 1998, Section 66 of Information & Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, and Section 7Ka, 8, 9, 12, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Rohaniya, District Varanasi (So it relates to the applicant) State Vs. Shailendra Kumar Singh and others are pending in the court of Apar District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act, Court no. IV, Varanasi.

It is also prayed that further proceedings in Criminal proceedings of Criminal Case / Sessions Trial No. 1195 of 2021 (Charge sheet no. 3 of 2022 dated 24.10.2022) (arising out of case crime no. 532 of 2020 under Sections 420, 409, 120-B, 411, 34 IPC & 9, 10 of U.P. Public Examination Act, 1998, Section 66 of Information & Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, and Section 7Ka, 8, 9, 12, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Rohaniya, District Varanasi (so it relates to the applicant) be stayed during the pendency of present application before this Hon’ble Court and/or to pass such other and further order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued:

a. That the applicant has passed his High School and Intermediate Exams conducted by U.P. Board in the year 2013 and 2015 respectively.

b. That the applicant appeared in the exam for the post of Jail Warden in the U.P. police department in the year 2016 with Roll No. 2059110259.

c. That the applicant was declared successful in the said examination.

d. That the applicant subsequently underwent medical examination and was sent for training thereafter.

e. That after completing the training the applicant was posted in District Jail, Sultanpur and was working there.

f. That a First Information Report dated 20.12.2020 as Case Crime No. 532 of 2020 under Sections 420, 409, 120-B, 411, 34 IPC, Sections 9, 10 of U.P. Public Examination Act, 1998, Section 66 of Information & Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Sections 7Ka, 8, 9, 12, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Rohaniya, District Varanasi was lodged against Shailendra Kumar Singh (the Assistant Incharge of the centre), Rohit Singh (the room incharge), Kuldeep Kumar Patel (the electrician) and Govind Kumar (a candidate).

g. That the applicant is not named in the first information report. His name has surfaced in the matter in the name of candidate appearing in the examination held on 19.12.2020 in the first session from 10.00 am to 12.00 pm.

h. That there is no credible evidence to connect the applicant in the present case. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The case against the applicant deserves to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State argued that the applicant is involved in large scale cheating/copying in the examination for the post of men and women Jail Warder, Firemen (men), Constable of Cavalier of the State of U.P. in the Direct Examination 2016. There has been recovery of money which was collected for the illegal activities. The participation of the applicant surfaced in the matter during investigation. After thorough investigation a chargesheet dated 24.10.2022 has been submitted against the applicant, Rajupal @ Raj Kumar Pal, Sonu Kumar and Dr. Sharad Kumar Singh on which cognizance has been taken and the accused persons have been summoned vide order dated 2.11.2022 passed by the trial court. It is argued that offences are made out on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. The applicant will have an option to raise his grieviances before the trial court at the appropriate stage. The present petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

5. The facts of the case as culled out from the first information report lodged on 20.12.2020 by Uday Pratap Yadav, Inspector, Crime Branch, U.P. against Shailendra Kumar Singh, Rohit Singh, Kuldeep Kumar Patel and Goving Kumar on the basis of recovery memo pertaining to recovery of Rs.90,000/-, 04 mobile phones, 01 question paper No. 381642, 01 Answer Sheet No. 346073, 01 solved question paper (photocopy) being cheating material of set-B, 01 identity card of Kuldeep Kumar Patel, 01 identity card of Shailendra Kumar Singh and his Aadhar Card and arrest of the said 04 persons is that the first informant was on duty on 19.12.2020 at Shivam Inter-College, Block-B, Maniyaripur-Gangapur, Police Station Rohaniya, Varanasi as Centre in-charge of Direct Recruitment 2016 of Male and Female Jail Warder, firemen (men), Constable of Cavalier wherein in the second shift from 2 pm to 4 pm at about 3.20 pm a candidate Govind Kumar sitting in room no.7 having Roll No. 2059120589 was caught using unfair means by S.I. Ravikant Malik along with material for the same. On enquiry he disclosed that he had given Rs.90,000/- to Shailendra Kumar Singh the Assistant Examination in- charge for cheating after which a solved B series answer sheet was provided to him by room in-charge Rohit Singh. A forged identity card of electrician was also given to Rohit Singh along with solved answer sheets which was provided to him and was recovered. Phool Chand the chacha of Shailendra Kumar Singh is a lecturer in Shivam Inter College and his father Lalchand Ram is the Manager of the college. On being asked he states that the solved answer sheet was transmitted on the whatsapp by Yogendra Verma of Varanasi. The recovered material was taken into possession along with the 04 arrested accused persons and the first information report was thus lodged. Subsequently during investigation the name of the applicant surfaced and he was made as an accused. Initially a charge-sheet No. 02 dated 12.10.2021 was submitted against Shailendra Kumar Singh, Rohit Singh, Kuldeep Kumar Patel, Govind Kumar, Yogendra Verma, Vinay Kumar singh, Gauri Shankar Patel, Rajendra Kumar Saroj, Raj Narayan Saroj & Narendra Kumar Srivastava and the investigation was kept pending. Subsequently a charge-sheet No. 03 dated 24.10.2022 was submitted against Rajupal @ Raj Kumar, Sonu Kumar, Dr. Sharad Kumar Singh Patel and Vinay Kumar Yadav (the present applicant). On the said chargesheet vide order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the trial court the accused persons were summoned to face trial.

6. It has been held by the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab : AIR 1960 SC 866 [LQ/SC/1960/96] ; State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 [LQ/SC/1991/186 ;] ; Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. : (1999) 8 SCC 686 [LQ/SC/1999/899] ; M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. : (2001) 8 SCC 645 [LQ/SC/2001/2336] ; Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. Vs. Mohammd Shariful Haque : (2005) 1 SCC 122 [LQ/SC/2004/1250] ; M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava : (2009) 9 SCC 682 [LQ/SC/2009/1721] ; Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. : (2011) 7 SCC 59 [LQ/SC/2011/817] ; Arun Bhandari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. : (2013) 2 SCC 801 [LQ/SC/2013/52] ; Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar : (2019) 6 SCC 107 [LQ/SC/2019/705] ; Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Anr. : (2019) 11 SCC It has been held by the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab : AIR 1960 SC 866 [LQ/SC/1960/96] ; State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 [LQ/SC/1991/186 ;] ; Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. : (1999) 8 SCC 686 [LQ/SC/1999/899] ; M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. : (2001) 8 SCC 645 [LQ/SC/2001/2336] ; Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. Vs. Mohammd Shariful Haque : (2005) 1 SCC 122 [LQ/SC/2004/1250] ; M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava : (2009) 9 SCC 682 [LQ/SC/2009/1721] ; Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. : (2011) 7 SCC 59 [LQ/SC/2011/817] ; Arun Bhandari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. : (2013) 2 SCC 801 [LQ/SC/2013/52] ; Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar : (2019) 6 SCC 107 [LQ/SC/2019/705] ; Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Anr. : (2019) 11 SCC

7. Further in the case of Priti Saraf & anr. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & anr. : Criminal Appeal No(s). 296 of 2021 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6364 of 2019] (judgment dated March 10, 2021) : 2021 SCC Online SC 206 the Apex Court while considering the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has held as follows:

"23. It being a settled principle of law that to exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and the High Court at that stage was not under an obligation to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. The offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and other documentary evidence, if any, on record.

24. The question which is raised for consideration is that in what circumstances and categories of cases, a criminal proceeding may be quashed either in exercise of the extraordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, or in the exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. This has often been hotly debated before this Court and various High Courts. Though in a series of decisions, this question has been answered on several occasions by this Court, yet the same still comes up for consideration and is seriously debated.

25. In this backdrop, the scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC has been examined in the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335) [LQ/SC/1990/744] . The relevant para is mentioned hereunder:-

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

26. This Court has clarified the broad contours and parameters in laying down the guidelines which have to be kept in mind by the High Courts while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. The aforesaid principles laid down by this Court are illustrative and not exhaustive. Nevertheless, it throws light on the circumstances and the situation which is to be kept in mind when the High Court exercises its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC

27. It has been further elucidated recently by this Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC 964 where jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 CrPC has been analysed at great length.

28. It is thus settled that the exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/chargesheet in deciding whether the case is the rarest of rare case, to scuttle the prosecution at its inception."

8. In the case of Ramveer Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. : 2002 SCC Online SC 484 the Apex Court has held in paragraphs 27, 38 and 39 that quashing of a criminal case by execising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be done in exceptional cases only. It was further held that crminal proceedeings cannot be nipped in the bud. Paragraphs 27, 38 and 39 are quoted herein:

"27. Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is not to be exercised for the asking.

38. Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent on hearing appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which might ultimately result in miscarriage of justice as held in Hamida v. Rashid @ Rasheed and Others, (2008) 1 SCC 474 [LQ/SC/2007/571] .

39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Atrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The Complaint Case No.19/2018 is not such a case which should be quashed at the inception itself without further Trial. The High Court rightly dismissed the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C."

9. Further in the case of Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat : 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in para 49 the Apex Court has held as under:

"49. In exercise of power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegation in the complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence."

10. Thus, it is trite law that at the stage of quashing only the material of the prosecution has to be seen and the court cannot delve into the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced. The disputed questions of facts of the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and only the prima facie prosecution case has to be looked into and as it is. Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the defence of the accused.

11. Yet there is another aspect in the matter. The applicant had approached this court challenging the first information of the present matter and for stay of his arrest through Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5754 of 2022 – Vinay Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, which came to be dismissed by a division bench of this Court as withdrawn after arguing it at length. The order passed in it on 30.05.2022 is quoted herein below:

“Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing at some length, comes up with the prayer to withdraw this writ petition as he intends to press his grievance in appropriate proceeding under Code of Criminal Procedure. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.”

12. Subsequently, the applicant filed an anticipatory bail application numbered as Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 5238 of 2022 – Vinay Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others which was dismissed vide order dated 1.7.2022. The said order is quoted herein below:

“1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Applicant-Vinay Kumar Yadav has approached this Court by way of filing this Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 0532 of 2020, under Sections 420, 409, 120B, 411, 34 IPC; 9,10 of Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998; 66 of Information and Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008; and, 7Ka, 8, 9, 12, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Rohaniya, District Varanasi.

3. This anticipatory bail application has been filed after the proceedings initiated against applicant under Section 82 Cr.P.C. This Court in Yogendra Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and another, 2022(4) ADJ 667 has held that in these circumstances anticipatory bail is not maintainable. The relevant observation of the Court is reproduced as under: "12. In view of above discussion the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground that applicant was not only declared proclaimed offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C. but proclamation of attachment of property was also issued under Section 83 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, as held in Prem Shankar Prasad (supra) applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail….."

4. In view of above and considering that proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against applicant, the present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.

5. Dismissed accordingly. ”

13. Against the order dated 1.07.2022 passed in the anticipatory bail application, the applicant preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6988 of 2022 – Vinay Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & ors, before the Apex Court in which vide order dated 10.08.2022, the arrest of the applicant was stayed in the present case. The said order is quoted herein below:

“Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing official translation are allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the selection process initiated by the UP Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, UP for the post of Jail Warder, 3638 vacancies were advertised and the present petitioner also after going through the process of selection, found suitable and was appointed on the recommendations made by the Board and by order dated 02.09.2021 sent for training. During the course of training, he was served with the non-bailable warrants in reference to the FIR No. 532 of 2020 registered on 20.12.2020. Although his name was not indicated in the FIR but appears during the course of investigation, something has emerged which which has become basis for issuing non-bailable warrants against him.

Issue notice returnable on 7th September, 2022.

In the meanwhile, there shall be stay on arrest of the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 532 of 2020 registered at Police Station Rohaniya, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh dated 20th December, 2020. However, he shall cooperate in the investigation.”

14. Subsequently the said Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 12.10.2022 and it was provided that if the petitioner surrenders within two weeks form the date of the order and applies for regular bail, his bail application shall be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible on its own merit in accordance with law. The said order is quoted herein below:

“We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and find no reason to interfere in the order(s) impugned.

The special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner surrenders within two weeks from today and applies for regular bail his bail application shall be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible on its own merits in accordance with law.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.”

15. Later on charge-sheet dated 24.10.2022 has been submitted against the applicant and three other co-accused persons on which cognizance has been taken and the accused persons have been summoned vide order dated 2.11.2022 passed by the trial court in the matter. The applicant has thus approached this court in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the prayers as quoted above.

16. In so far as the order dated 12.1.2022 of the Apex Court is concern, the same has not yet been complied with. The applicant is resorting to forum hunting and abuse of process of law.

17. The Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B. : (2022) 7 SCC 124 [LQ/SC/2022/388 ;] has in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14 and 17 while dealing with the issue of forum shopping and deprecating it has stated as follows:

“11. Predominantly, the Indian Judiciary has time and again reiterated that forum shopping takes several hues and shades but the concept of “forum shopping” has not been rendered an exclusive definition in any Indian statute. Forum shopping as per Merriam-Webster Dictionary is:

“The practice of choosing the court in which to bring an action from among those courts that could properly exercise jurisdiction based on determination of which court is likely to provide the most favourable outcome.”

12. The Indian Judiciary's observation and obiter dicta has aided in streamlining the concept of forum shopping in the Indian legal system. This Court has condemned the practice of forum shopping by litigants and termed it as an abuse of law and also deciphered different categories of forum shopping.

13. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Cipla Ltd. [Union of India v.Cipla Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 262] [LQ/SC/2016/1358] has laid down factors which lead to the practice of forum shopping or choice of forum by the litigants which are as follows : (SCC pp. 318-20, paras 148-51 & 155).

“148. A classic example of forum shopping is when litigant approaches one court for relief but does not get the desired relief and then approaches another court for the same relief. This occurred in Rajiv Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Rajiv Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 525] [LQ/SC/1999/839] . The respondent mother of a young child had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Rajasthan High Court and apparently did not get the required relief from that Court. She then filed a petition in the Delhi High Court also for a writ of habeas corpus and obtained the necessary relief. Notwithstanding this, this Court did not interfere with the order [Priyanka Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC OnLine Del 192] passed by the Delhi High Court for the reason that this Court ascertained the views of the child and found that she did not want to even talk to her adoptive parents and therefore the custody of the child granted by the Delhi High Court to the respondent mother was not interfered with. The decision of this Court is on its own facts, even though it is a classic case of forum shopping.

149. In Arathi Bandi v. Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao [Arathi Bandi v. Bandi Jagadraksha“148. A classic example of forum shopping is when litigant approaches one court for relief but does not get the desired relief and then approaches another court for the same relief. This occurred in Rajiv Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Rajiv Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 525] [LQ/SC/1999/839] . The respondent mother of a young child had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Rajasthan High Court and apparently did not get the required relief from that Court. She then filed a petition in the Delhi High Court also for a writ of habeas corpus and obtained the necessary relief. Notwithstanding this, this Court did not interfere with the order [Priyanka Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC OnLine Del 192] passed by the Delhi High Court for the reason that this Court ascertained the views of the child anka Rao, (2013) 15 SCC 790 [LQ/SC/2013/765] : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 475] this Court noted that jurisdiction in a court is not attracted by the operation or creation of fortuitous circumstances. In that case, circumstances were created by one of the parties to the dispute to confer jurisdiction on a particular High Court. This was frowned upon by this Court by observing that to allow the assumption of jurisdiction in created circumstances would only result in encouraging forum shopping.

150. Another case of creating circumstances for the purposes of forum shopping was World Tanker Carrier Corpn. v. SNP Shipping Services (P) Ltd. [World Tanker Carrier Corpn. v. SNP Shipping Services (P) Ltd., (1998) 5 SCC 310] [LQ/SC/1998/477] wherein it was observed that the respondent/plaintiff had made a deliberate attempt to bring the cause of action, namely, a collision between two vessels on the high seas within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Bringing one of the vessels to Bombay in order to confer jurisdiction on the Bombay High Court had the character of forum shopping rather than anything else.

151. Another form of forum shopping is taking advantage of a view held by a particular High Court in contrast to a different view held by another High Court. In Ambica Industries v. CCE [Ambica Industries v. CCE, (2007) 6 SCC 769] [LQ/SC/2007/763] the assessee was from Lucknow. It challenged an order [Ambica Industries v. CCE, 2003 SCC OnLine CESTAT 1365] passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”) located in Delhi before the Delhi High Court. CESTAT had jurisdiction over the State of Uttar Pradesh, NCT of Delhi and Maharashtra. The Delhi High Court did not entertain the proceedings initiated by the assessee for want of territorial jurisdiction. Dismissing the assessee's appeal this Court gave the example of an assessee affected by an assessment order in Bombay invoking the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by the Delhi High Court or an assessee affected by an order of assessment made at Bombay invoking the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by it and consequently evade the law laid down by the Bombay High Court. It was said that this could not be allowed and circumstances such as this would lead to some sort of judicial anarchy.

***

155. The decisions referred to clearly lay down the principle that the court is required to adopt a functional test vis-à-vis the litigation and the litigant. What has to be seen is whether there is any functional similarity in the proceedings between one court and another or whether there is some sort of subterfuge on the part of a litigant. It is this functional test that will determine whether a litigant is indulging in forum shopping or not.”

14. Forum shopping has been termed as disreputable practice by the courts and has no sanction and paramountcy in law. In spite of this Court condemning the practice of forum shopping, Respondent 2 filed two complaints i.e. a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi on 6-6-2012 and a complaint which was eventually registered as FIR No. 168 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B I.P.C. before P.S. Bowbazar, Calcutta on 28-3-2013 i.e. one in Delhi and one complaint in Kolkata. The complaint filed in Kolkata was a reproduction of the complaint filed in Delhi except with the change of place of occurrence in order to create a jurisdiction.

************************

17. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in K. Jayaram v. BDA [K. Jayaram v. BDA, (2022) 12 SCC 815 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1194] observed : (SCC para 14).

“14. It is necessary for us to state here that in order to check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter and more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistent orders through different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability of making a false statement, we are of the view that the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subjectmatter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations were or are pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law.”

18. On pointed query to the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether the order dated 12.10.2022 of Apex Court has been complied with or not, he states that after the said order, due to the Deepawali festival with fell after it he could not surrender and as such the order could not be complied with.

19. However, from the record it transpires that the applicant was granted stay of arrest by the Apex Court vide order dated 10.8.2022 in the said SLP, which was enjoyed by him. The said order is Annexure-9 to the affidavit, which has been extracted above. The applicant now has come up with the prayers as quoted above in the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., without complying the order dated 12.10.2022 of the Apex Court. It appears that he is only interested for stay in one or the other forum in his favour as is apparent from the facts of the case that previously on 10.8.2022, he was granted stay of arrest by the Apex Court which he enjoyed and subsequently, the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Apex Court in his SLP has not been complied with by him and no valid reason(s) for non-compliance of the same has been given by him. There is only a statement at bar that after the said order, the Deepawali festival fell which prevented him to surrender before the court below. It is thus clear that the applicant is resorting to forum hunting and nothing else. It is clearly an abuse of process of law.

20. The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is thus dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) to be deposited by the applicant before the Registrar General of this Court within a period of 20 days from today. The Registrar General shall ensure that if the said amount is deposited by the applicant within the aforesaid period, he shall issue a letter to the District Magistrate,Varanasi for realization of the said amount as land revenue from him. The District Magistrate, Varanasi after realising the said amount shall remit it forthwith to the Registrar General of this Court. If it is deposited, the same shall be transmitted in the account of High Court Legal Services Committee for its utilization therein.

Learned counsel for the applicant shall file an affidavit of compliance of the order of deposit of cost within three days thereafter.

21. Looking to the facts of the case, the prima facie allegation against the applicant, the law as stated above and the abuse of process of court, no case for interference is made out. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is thus dismissed.